Detroit Edison Company; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 70707-70708 [2010-29114]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices
temporary item). Master files of an
electronic information system used to
track administrative forms.
Dated: November 12, 2010.
Michael J. Kurtz,
Assistant Archivist for Records Services—
Washington, DC.
[FR Doc. 2010–29233 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–341; NRC–2010–0357;
FERMI, Unit 2]
Detroit Edison Company;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) part 20 Appendix G, Section III.E,
for Facility Operating License No. NFP–
43, issued to Detroit Edison Company
(DECo, the licensee), for operation of
Fermi, Unit 2 (Fermi-2) located in
Monroe County, Michigan. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an
exemption to extend the time period
that can elapse during shipments of
low-level radioactive waste before the
licensee is required to investigate and
file a report with the NRC. Specifically,
the exemption would extend the time
period for the licensee to receive
acknowledgment that the low-level
radioactive waste shipment has been
received by the intended recipient from
20 days to 35 days.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application for an
exemption dated February 5, 2010. The
licensee has requested an exemption
from certain control and tracking
requirements in 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix G, Section III.E, which
require the licensee to investigate, and
file a report with the NRC, if shipments
of low-level radioactive waste are not
acknowledged by the intended recipient
within 20 days after transfer to the
shipper.
The Need for the Proposed Action
DECo anticipates the increased use of
rail as the method to ship radioactive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Nov 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
waste. The licensee has experience with
rail shipments from the Fermi-1
decommissioning project. Those rail
shipments typically took more than 20
days to reach their destination in Clive,
Utah. On April 26, 2010, the NRC
granted a similar exemption extending
the time period from 20 days to 35 days
for radioactive shipments from Fermi-1
based on historical data submitted in
support of that exemption request.
The licensee believes, and the NRC
staff agrees, that the need to investigate,
trace, and report to the NRC on the
shipment of low-level waste packages
not reaching their destination within 20
days does not serve the underlying
purpose of the rule. The Commission
finds that the underlying purpose of the
Appendix G timing provision at issue is
to investigate a late shipment that may
be lost, misdirected or diverted.
Furthermore, by extending the elapsed
time for receipt acknowledgement to 35
days before requiring investigations and
reporting, a reasonable upper limit on
shipment duration (based on historical
analysis) is still maintained if a
breakdown of normal tracking systems
were to occur. Therefore, the NRC staff
finds that granting an exemption to
extend the time period from 20 days to
35 days for mixed-mode or truck/rail or
rail shipments of low-level radioactive
waste will not result in an undue hazard
to life or property.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed action and concludes that the
proposed action is procedural and
administrative in nature. The staff has
concluded that the changes would not
significantly affect plant safety and
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the probability of an accident
occurring. The proposed action would
not result in an increased radiological
hazard beyond those previously
analyzed in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report. There will be no change to
radioactive effluents that affect radiation
exposures to plant workers and
members of the public. No changes will
be made to plant buildings or the site
property. Therefore, no changes or
different types of radiological impacts
are expected as a result of the proposed
changes.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
70707
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action. The details of the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided in the exemption issued as
part of the letter to the licensee
approving the exemption to the
regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for the Enrico
Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2,
NUREG–0769, dated August 1981, as
supplemented with Addendum No. 1 in
March 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on September 21, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the State official, Mr.
Ken Yale, of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources and Environment
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official
had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated February 5, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
70708
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Notices
ML100430349). Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission’s regulations in Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), § 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR
50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant
hazards consideration, which is
presented below:
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of November, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh L. Chawla,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III–
1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
1. Does the proposed change involve a
significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed license amendment corrects
the out-of-date title, removes the revision
number, and removes the submittal date of
the Palisades Nuclear Plant (PNP) physical
security plan in section 2.E. of the Renewed
Facility Operating License. The proposed
amendment does not involve operation of
plant structures, systems, or components
(SSC) in a manner or configuration different
from those previously recognized or
evaluated.
The proposed change in section 2.E. of the
Renewed Facility Operating License is
administrative and has no impact on plant
operation or equipment.
Therefore, operation of the facility in
accordance with the proposed amendment
would not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed license amendment does not
involve a physical alteration of any SSC or
change the way any SSC is operated. The
proposed license amendment does not
involve operation of any SSC in a manner or
configuration different from those previously
recognized or evaluated.
The proposed change in section 2.E. of the
Renewed Facility Operating License is
administrative and has no impact on plant
operation or equipment.
Therefore, the proposed Renewed Facility
Operating License change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed modification of section 2.E.
of the Renewed Facility Operating License is
administrative and has no impact on plant
operation or equipment or on any margins of
safety.
[FR Doc. 2010–29114 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–255; NRC–2010–0356]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Palisades Nuclear Plant; Notice of
Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment
to Facility Operating License No. DPR–
20 issued to Entergy Nuclear
Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for
operation of the Palisades Nuclear Plant
(PNP) located in Van Buren County,
Michigan.
The proposed amendment would
revise Section 2.E. of the PNP Renewed
Facility Operating License. The change
would remove the name of the former
operator of the plant in the title of the
PNP physical security plan and replace
it with Entergy Nuclear. The change
would also remove the security plan
revision number and the date the plan
was submitted to the NRC.
Before issuance of the proposed
license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), and the Commission’s
regulations.
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:56 Nov 17, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Therefore, the proposed TS change does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the
licensee’s analysis and, based on this
review, it appears that the three
standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff
proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no
significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not
issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license
amendment before expiration of the 60day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards
consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment
prior to the expiration of the 30-day
comment period should circumstances
change during the 30-day comment
period such that failure to act in a
timely way would result, for example,
in derating or shutdown of the facility.
Should the Commission take action
prior to the expiration of either the
comment period or the notice period, it
will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the
Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that
the need to take this action will occur
very infrequently.
Addresses: You may submit
comments by any one of the following
methods. Please include Docket ID
NRC–2010–0356 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the
Federal Rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your
comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information,
the NRC cautions you against including
any information in your submission that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party
soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for
submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their
comments to remove any identifying or
contact information, and therefore, they
should not include any information in
E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM
18NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70707-70708]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29114]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-341; NRC-2010-0357; FERMI, Unit 2]
Detroit Edison Company; Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 20 Appendix G, Section III.E, for Facility
Operating License No. NFP-43, issued to Detroit Edison Company (DECo,
the licensee), for operation of Fermi, Unit 2 (Fermi-2) located in
Monroe County, Michigan. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the
NRC performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an exemption to extend the time
period that can elapse during shipments of low-level radioactive waste
before the licensee is required to investigate and file a report with
the NRC. Specifically, the exemption would extend the time period for
the licensee to receive acknowledgment that the low-level radioactive
waste shipment has been received by the intended recipient from 20 days
to 35 days.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for an exemption dated February 5, 2010. The licensee has
requested an exemption from certain control and tracking requirements
in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, which require the
licensee to investigate, and file a report with the NRC, if shipments
of low-level radioactive waste are not acknowledged by the intended
recipient within 20 days after transfer to the shipper.
The Need for the Proposed Action
DECo anticipates the increased use of rail as the method to ship
radioactive waste. The licensee has experience with rail shipments from
the Fermi-1 decommissioning project. Those rail shipments typically
took more than 20 days to reach their destination in Clive, Utah. On
April 26, 2010, the NRC granted a similar exemption extending the time
period from 20 days to 35 days for radioactive shipments from Fermi-1
based on historical data submitted in support of that exemption
request.
The licensee believes, and the NRC staff agrees, that the need to
investigate, trace, and report to the NRC on the shipment of low-level
waste packages not reaching their destination within 20 days does not
serve the underlying purpose of the rule. The Commission finds that the
underlying purpose of the Appendix G timing provision at issue is to
investigate a late shipment that may be lost, misdirected or diverted.
Furthermore, by extending the elapsed time for receipt acknowledgement
to 35 days before requiring investigations and reporting, a reasonable
upper limit on shipment duration (based on historical analysis) is
still maintained if a breakdown of normal tracking systems were to
occur. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that granting an exemption to
extend the time period from 20 days to 35 days for mixed-mode or truck/
rail or rail shipments of low-level radioactive waste will not result
in an undue hazard to life or property.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed
action and concludes that the proposed action is procedural and
administrative in nature. The staff has concluded that the changes
would not significantly affect plant safety and would not have a
significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result in an increased radiological
hazard beyond those previously analyzed in the Updated Safety Analysis
Report. There will be no change to radioactive effluents that affect
radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. No
changes will be made to plant buildings or the site property.
Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed changes.
The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would
be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. The details
of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption
issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to
the regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, NUREG-0769, dated August
1981, as supplemented with Addendum No. 1 in March 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 21, 2010, the
NRC staff consulted with the State official, Mr. Ken Yale, of the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated February 5, 2010 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
[[Page 70708]]
ML100430349). Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff
by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of November, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh L. Chawla,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29114 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
